If it makes you feel better, that isn't the kind of slug you'd find in your garden.
Those don't suspend themselves from trees and their peni are much smaller, they're referred to as "love darts." They're also white in color, not a vibrant blue.

Demand to be taken out, piss on the floor anyways, smelly, demand attention, demand to be fed, bites you, gives you allergic reactions, stays alive for like a fucking decade, and then dies after you've gotten attached. Overall annoying experience.

I dunno, my family record is pretty good. Considering I had a soldier that lived till his 90's in my family and 3 dudes who lived till the mid 100's. The only "allergy" i've got is a slight numbing feeling when I eat prawns and that's after I've had a thousand. I'm tall, I survived losing a lung with no big repercussions on my cardiovascular resistance. I'd say I am Iron-Man, but that's Ozzy.

That's not the type of thing that you can tackle on 2000 characters. Nor do I feel like typing that much. Suffice it to say, I am not as an individual, as A. Walker, opposed to them, but I oppose them on other levels.

Not, really. I'd rather take that time on implementing a more complete intelligence test. And suffice it to say that nurture far surpasses nature when it comes to intelligence, and it's little offspring IQ.

Plus, when it comes to things that game changing in a world as unequal as ours you've basically got yourself a cyberpunk novel in the making. Except this is not a novel.

>nurture far surpasses nature
Ultimately depends on which environments you're comparing. In any modern society, nurture is likely to only cause a small difference and the genes are the largest drive. For example, brain size can be used as a proxy for intelligence. I don't think you can explain how nurture could cause a brain to get bigger.
Sometimes gray matter can get denser but only slightly and it's very localized.

Okay well what if we first established rules. For example that Eugenics must be independent of race, sex, religion, and socioeconomic status. I think that would be fair enough to work out.

A brain with a big capacity doesn't equal a brain getting used right. You're asking for everyone to have a Ferrari, but most roads in the world aren't made for Ferraris and most people don't know how to treat them.

I like that analogy. I definitely agree with most of it but I still think it's flawed.
I remember reading a quote from Bill Gates saying something like "People don't realize how many jobs are going to be replaced by technology in their lifetimes." I think that then usher in the shift from our societies values, bringing in the age of the nerd. So many jobs will be gone there will be no more place for lower IQ individuals anymore, apart from being artists or social positions. But not very many of them can be good at those.
To use your analogy, more and more roads are becoming paved. The world wants more science and math related workers, but most of the ones we have simply aren't intelligent enough for them.
I wonder how much faster science would progress if you doubled the number of babies people with 115+ IQ's had. They already have the lowest number of babies in our society, something around 1-2 on average. In fact many scientists nowadays don't have any. It's really sad if you think about all their intelligence genes dying off with them forever.

Let's follow along with that analogy, then. IQ is basically your mileage per gallon. In the end, yes, people with higher IQ have an advantage at some things. But other people have cars with AC, or more comfortable seats. And in the end, once they reach whatever goal they were aiming for; say, a job at a local accounting firm. No one asks them how much gas they spent on the way there. But there's always people that'll just drive for the sake of driving or try to draw a cock on the dirt of the road, despite whatever their mileage per gallon is.

Although ultimately I don't think that's very important. The main type of Eugenics I think matters is to increase the number of geniuses. Decreasing the number of retards is unimportant. Retards usually just get segregated away in their poor communities/prisons/low income housing neighborhoods anyways. The positive impact of geniuses far outweighs the negative impact of low IQ people.
Which is why I think people with high IQ's need to stop having fewer children to "fight overpopulation, man!" and should start having more than everyone else. I mean, even if the world had too many people, the world doesn't have too many highly intelligent people, it can always use more.

I agree that people with relatively lower IQ's can grasp the same concepts that those with higher ones can but have to work harder at it. But people with IQ's in the 80's would fail to even make it through calculus no matter how much effort they gave. My ideal is to reduce the number of these people in society and increase the ones who can get through calculus easily. There's always going to be delinquents, okay, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't make everyone more competent as a whole.

This isn't really the moment for me to argue politics, but that's why I think states rights are stupid. Like, you could be a happy family with a capybara pet and then you have to move to South Dakota and you have to kill little Pendragon because it's not legal there.